Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists
By George F. Will
Thursday, March 27, 2008; Page A17

Residents of Austin, home of Texas's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

 Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

 Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

 Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

 Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

 In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

 People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks's book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks's book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks's data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Mr. Kotter

03-27-2008, 11:06 PM

Give someone a fish; feed them for a day.

Teach someone to fish, and feed them for a lifetime.

HolmeZz

03-27-2008, 11:09 PM

As a young agnostic liberal, I've never really had enough disposable personal income to do much monetarily. Most of my contributions have probably come in the form of Girl Scout Cookies. ;)

I have done stuff like given blood though.

Jenson71

03-27-2008, 11:12 PM

The simple explanation is that liberals donate anonymously and do not seek tax refunds for it.

wazu

03-27-2008, 11:14 PM

Give someone a fish; feed them for a day.

Teach someone to fish, and feed them for a lifetime.

This is true, but misses the point. Conservatives don't object to charity. They object to forcible charity. Charity at the point of a gun is not charity at all. It's just socialism.

wazu

03-27-2008, 11:15 PM

The simple explanation is that liberals donate anonymously and do not seek tax refunds for it.

ROFL

I'm sure that's what Al Gore's explanation would be.

Fishpicker

03-27-2008, 11:24 PM

The simple explanation is that liberals donate anonymously and do not seek tax refunds for it.

I don't have a ton of money, but I try to give to various local things, like dog shelters. It's not enough to even worry about deducting, but it is something I guess :shrug:

SBK

03-27-2008, 11:57 PM

As a young agnostic liberal, I've never really had enough disposable personal income to do much monetarily. Most of my contributions have probably come in the form of Girl Scout Cookies. ;)

I have done stuff like given blood though.

Strange as this sounds, when you start to give more you'll soon find that you'll have more money.

RealSNR

03-28-2008, 12:16 AM

What's this political philosophy bullshit doing here? Don't you know that Hillary is completely worn out from staying up all night waiting for the red phone to ring at 3 AM and that Barack is best friends with Clayton Bigsby?

ClevelandBronco

03-28-2008, 12:20 AM

Before I read or respond to this thread, could you PM me your net worth, Adam? I want to know whether I care.

ClevelandBronco

03-28-2008, 12:23 AM

Kidding. Interesting article.

I wonder how the figures would come out if giving to churches was removed from the calculations.

Not that they should be. I'm just curious.

jAZ

03-28-2008, 12:38 AM

Translation: "People who attend church tend to support their church while people who do not attend church do not."

What does giving money to create a billionaire class of powerful mega-chuch leaders have to do with liberals or conservatives caring about poor people?

ClevelandBronco

03-28-2008, 12:53 AM

Translation: "People who attend church tend to support their church while people who do not attend church do not."

What does giving money to create a billionaire class of powerful mega-chuch leaders have to do with liberals or conservatives caring about poor people?

Well, I made the same point in a more friendly way, but if you want to steal the thought and turn it into a pissing match, run with it.

Direckshun

03-28-2008, 12:53 AM

Honestly, the evidence that one's place on the ideological scale causes a more altruistic lifestyle here is pretty circumstantial to me. Now the religion aspect does seem to lead to direct causation, but I think it's a stretch to throw ideology in there.

jAZ

03-28-2008, 01:02 AM

Well, I made the same point in a more friendly way, but if you want to steal the thought and turn it into a pissing match, run with it.
Are you seriously (ie, not just playful banter) claiming I "st(ole your) thought"?

I hope not.

Aside from that, I think it's strange to call me out for starting a pissing match when George Will frames this (flawed) story as "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists" and Adam passive agressively bashes liberals with the story itself.

The pissing started in the WaPo and continued in the first post.

I was blunt, but hardly pissing at anything (prior to your unnecessarily calling me out personally).

ClevelandBronco

03-28-2008, 01:09 AM

Are you seriously (ie, not just playful banter) claiming I "st(ole your) thought"?

I hope not.

Aside from that, I think it's strange to call me out for starting a pissing match when George Will frames this (flawed) story as "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists" and Adam passive agressively bashes liberals with the story itself.

The pissing started in the WaPo and continued in the first post.

I was blunt, but hardly pissing at anything (prior to your unnecessarily calling me out personally).

Run with it.

007

03-28-2008, 05:04 AM

It's not a problem with "the poor" it is a problem with the people that honestly believe they are entitled to anything the government can and will give to them. It's one thing to use government money to get back on your feet and then return the favor. It is quite another to just live on it for the rest of your life like several out there do.

BucEyedPea

03-28-2008, 06:11 AM

The simple explanation is that liberals donate anonymously and do not seek tax refunds for it.

I'd say it's more like the poor liberals (not limousine liberals) like the anonymity of collecting their aid from the govt instead of standing in a public soup kitchen line where everyone can see them. Never good PR to advertise poverty.

BucEyedPea

03-28-2008, 06:12 AM

BTW for those commenting about giving money to churches, those churches do a lot of hurricane relief, adoption, healthcare and poverty relief too. In fact due to less bureaucratic red-tape they deliver more efficiently too. They do a better job. In fact Americans gave a helluva a lot more from voluntary charitable donations to the Indonesian tsunami victims than what all of Europe gave via taxes which was the form their giving came in. I don't recall the numbers off the top of my head but I remember being impressed with the sizeable difference.

Baby Lee

03-28-2008, 06:48 AM

Are you seriously (ie, not just playful banter) claiming I "st(ole your) thought"?

I hope not.

Aside from that, I think it's strange to call me out for starting a pissing match when George Will frames this (flawed) story as "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists" and Adam passive agressively bashes liberals with the story itself.

The pissing started in the WaPo and continued in the first post.

I was blunt, but hardly pissing at anything (prior to your unnecessarily calling me out personally).

The pissing started with the a-holes with the bumper stickers.

bkkcoh

03-28-2008, 06:58 AM

BTW for those commenting about giving money to churches, those churches do a lot of hurricane relief, adoption, healthcare and poverty relief too. In fact due to less bureaucratic red-tape they deliver more efficiently too. They do a better job. In fact Americans gave a helluva a lot more from voluntary charitable donations to the Indonesian tsunami victims than what all of Europe gave via taxes which was the form their giving came in. I don't recall the numbers off the top of my head but I remember being impressed with the sizeable difference.

Was it Bush 41 or Bush 43 that wanted money to be given to the churches to distribute to the needy because they were the ones more or less on the front lines and was blasted because of the separation of church and state.

It only makes sense to get the funds and good to the people who are closest to the problems to help aid the ones in need.

Mr. Kotter

03-28-2008, 07:00 AM

The simple explanation is that liberals donate anonymously and do not seek tax refunds for it.

:spock:

I sure hope you aren't being serious here, Jens... ROFL

BucEyedPea

03-28-2008, 07:09 AM

Was it Bush 41 or Bush 43 that wanted money to be given to the churches to distribute to the needy because they were the ones more or less on the front lines and was blasted because of the separation of church and state.
That's immaterial to my post. The money I meantioned for the tsunami were the private donations as were many hurricane ones even if the govt had other endeavers simultaneously. Then there's all those before Bush's faith based iniatives. BTW the Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state". That was a judge based on a letter written by Jefferson, who differed from other founders like Washington on that matter. ( but that's another debate that's been done here many times) Not that I support such initiates either.

Duck Dog

03-28-2008, 07:55 AM

The simple explanation is that liberals donate anonymously and do not seek tax refunds for it.

Or another way to look at it, is that Republicans are more motivated which translates into better jobs, which translates into attracting better mates which translates into better household income which translates into being able to give more.

Sully

03-28-2008, 07:58 AM

Or another way to look at it, is that Republicans are more motivated which translates into better jobs, which translates into attracting better mates which translates into better household income which translates into being able to give more.

The OP refutes this theory.

bkkcoh

03-28-2008, 08:06 AM

That's immaterial to my post. The money I meantioned for the tsunami were the private donations as were many hurricane ones even if the govt had other endeavers simultaneously. Then there's all those before Bush's faith based iniatives. BTW the Constitution doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state". That was a judge based on a letter written by Jefferson, who differed from other founders like Washington on that matter. ( but that's another debate that's been done here many times) Not that I support such initiates either.

BEP, Sorry, but my post wasn't truly directed at you, it was just a piggy back on your post.

But any time you have something like that come up, the MSM parade Bob Beckol, iirc, up there to declare how wrong that is to have the churches involved in that.

Duck Dog

03-28-2008, 08:21 AM

The OP refutes this theory.

I had quoted Jenson, not the OP.

Sully

03-28-2008, 08:27 AM

I had quoted Jenson, not the OP.

I understand.
I also understand that the OP says liberal families' incomes are 6% higher... refuting your theory.

patteeu

03-28-2008, 11:00 AM

Let's put this to the (admittedly non-scientific) test. I'll choose a liberal and a conservative and a year at random and compare their charitable giving. Hang on a minute while I initiate my random selector machine...

...

...

OK, it looks like I'm going to be comparing the charitable giving of liberals Barack and Michelle Obama against the charitable giving of conservatives Dick and Lynne Cheney for the year of ... just a second ...

...

2005.

Since the Cheney's have a significantly higher income than the Obamas, I won't compare absolute contributions as that would be unfair to the Obamas. Instead, I'll compare their contributions as a percentage of income. Here are the results:

Name (ideological identification) % of income donated to charity
----------------------------------- ------------------------------

I understand.
I also understand that the OP says liberal families' incomes are 6% higher... refuting your theory.

I understand that. I also understand that there is little or no basis given to come up with that 6 percent higher number. So in theory, my explanation is just as valid...or just as worthless. :D

Logical

03-28-2008, 03:45 PM

Or another way to look at it, is that Republicans are more motivated which translates into better jobs, which translates into attracting better mates which translates into better household income which translates into being able to give more.Is this why liberals experience better sex, no mates to tie them down?

ClevelandBronco

03-28-2008, 03:51 PM

Is this why liberals experience better sex, no mates to tie them down?

I would have guessed that you liked to be tied down. :D

Damn. Can't get a smiley on "edit."

chagrin

03-28-2008, 03:53 PM

Conservatives don't care about poor people

In other words, "The peasants are revolting"

"I agree they stink"

Logical

03-28-2008, 03:54 PM

I would have guessed that you liked to be tied down.

Damn. Can't get a smiley on "edit.":evil:

BucEyedPea

03-28-2008, 03:58 PM

I would have guessed that you liked to be tied down.

Damn. Can't get a smiley on "edit."

You can if you hit advanced. They just hide that stuff now.

ClevelandBronco

03-28-2008, 04:08 PM

You can if you hit advanced. They just hide that stuff now.

Tried it and it worked. Thanks.

wazu

03-28-2008, 11:00 PM

Are you seriously (ie, not just playful banter) claiming I "st(ole your) thought"?

I hope not.

Aside from that, I think it's strange to call me out for starting a pissing match when George Will frames this (flawed) story as "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists" and Adam passive agressively bashes liberals with the story itself.

The pissing started in the WaPo and continued in the first post.

I was blunt, but hardly pissing at anything (prior to your unnecessarily calling me out personally).

I don't see what is so flawed about George Will's statement. It's the spirit of giving that is in question. You may think churches don't provide charity or do work you consider important for the poor, but I'll bet the people donating to them do.

The beauty of this article is that it demonstrates the massive flaw in the logic that says that if you do not condone forcible re-distribution of wealth, then you are an uncharitable person. This country is about freedom and liberty, including the freedom to refrain from giving when you can't afford to, or simply don't want to. What is so refreshing to me is to see that the same people defending these principles are the ones who tend to give more already in spite of earning less. There is hope for America after all.

jAZ

03-28-2008, 11:12 PM

I don't see what is so flawed about George Will's statement. It's the spirit of giving that is in question. You may think churches don't provide charity or do work you consider important for the poor, but I'll bet the people donating to them do.

The beauty of this article is that it demonstrates the massive flaw in the logic that says that if you do not condone forcible re-distribution of wealth, then you are an uncharitable person. This country is about freedom and liberty, including the freedom to refrain from giving when you can't afford to, or simply don't want to. What is so refreshing to me is to see that the same people defending these principles are the ones who tend to give more already in spite of earning less. There is hope for America after all.
I'm not saying Churches don't do charity. But passing the plate, tithing, etc pays for the staff, the building, the landscaping, new pews, the bible camp, etc.

Anyone who doesn't go to church doesn't get credit toward "charity" for the 10% of their income they pay towards that $1,000,000 building and $100,000 pastor.

That they include those contributions in this discussion makes it DEEPLY flawed.

keg in kc

03-28-2008, 11:25 PM

Let's say you have a 'liberal' family living in Manhattan, NY with a 100K income and a 'conservative' family living in Lee's Summit, Missouri with a 94K income. Which one would you think is more likely to have a greater amount of disposable income to give to charity?

Another interesting question would be, rather than just money, how much time individuals volunteer (no bias in the question, just simple curiousity).

wazu

03-28-2008, 11:27 PM

I'm not saying Churches don't do charity. But passing the plate, tithing, etc pays for the staff, the building, the landscaping, new pews, the bible camp, etc.

Anyone who doesn't go to church doesn't get credit toward "charity" for the 10% of their income they pay towards that $1,000,000 building and $100,000 pastor.

That they include those contributions in this discussion makes it DEEPLY flawed.

I'll concede that I don't personally see church donations as being quite as noble as straight charity donations. You do pay a certain amount knowing you are paying the rent, utilities, and for the services of the staff and pastor. But your view that everybody is partying it up in million dollar churches with rich pastors is way out of line. When I started going to church it was in a gradeschool cafeteria, then we graduated to a steel building, and finally we built a really nice big church that could accommodate many more people. Since I have moved on they expanded again. Our priest always had and still has a very humble residence with a very used car and home appliances. All the while a great deal of charity was done in our community and a great deal of money was donated by people who couldn't really afford to give in the first place.

I realize that this is not the case everywhere, particularly in big cities, but most Americans who attend church are doing so in much humbler surroundings than what you seem to believe. Most of those churches also take up "second" donations on a regular basis for cash that goes directly to other charitable organizations and causes.

Joe Seahawk

03-28-2008, 11:47 PM

I'm not saying Churches don't do charity. But passing the plate, tithing, etc pays for the staff, the building, the landscaping, new pews, the bible camp, etc.

Anyone who doesn't go to church doesn't get credit toward "charity" for the 10% of their income they pay towards that $1,000,000 building and $100,000 pastor.

That they include those contributions in this discussion makes it DEEPLY flawed.

Yep, just take a look at reverend Wright's 1.6 million dollar (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=40394)home being built by church funds. He hates the rich folk however..

Chief Henry

03-29-2008, 07:10 AM

Yep, just take a look at reverend Wright's 1.6 million dollar (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=40394)home being built by church funds. He hates the rich folk however..

Rev.Wright has been exposed as a HUGE hypocrite hasn't he. G*Dam Cracka wanna be is all he is...

patteeu

03-29-2008, 10:26 AM

I'm not saying Churches don't do charity. But passing the plate, tithing, etc pays for the staff, the building, the landscaping, new pews, the bible camp, etc.

Anyone who doesn't go to church doesn't get credit toward "charity" for the 10% of their income they pay towards that $1,000,000 building and $100,000 pastor.

That they include those contributions in this discussion makes it DEEPLY flawed.

:rolleyes:

As if people who advocate for government redistribution programs to benefit the poor aren't also advocating for a bloated bureaucracy complete with well paid administrators and expensive administration buildings. Whether we're talking about charitably giving your own money privately or "chartiably" giving yours and everyone else's through your big government voting record, you're going to encounter these cost of doing business inefficiencies. I can't recall a convincing argument as to why we should believe that these inefficiencies are greater in the private model.

Baby Lee

03-29-2008, 10:31 AM

:rolleyes:

As if people who advocate for government redistribution programs to benefit the poor aren't also advocating for a bloated bureaucracy complete with well paid administrators and expensive administration buildings. Whether we're talking about charitably giving your own money privately or "chartiably" giving yours and everyone else's through your big government voting record, you're going to encounter these cost of doing business inefficiencies. I can't recall a convincing argument as to why we should believe that these inefficiencies are greater in the private model.

Yeah, love my moms bitching about the fountain in the new IRS building, an expensive add-on that the manager insisted on [while the cafeteria offers 6.00 chicken sammiches and 2.00 coffee] that worked all of a couple weeks before breaking down.

CHIEF4EVER

03-29-2008, 10:47 AM

:rolleyes:

As if people who advocate for government redistribution programs to benefit the poor aren't also advocating for a bloated bureaucracy complete with well paid administrators and expensive administration buildings. Whether we're talking about charitably giving your own money privately or "chartiably" giving yours and everyone else's through your big government voting record, you're going to encounter these cost of doing business inefficiencies. I can't recall a convincing argument as to why we should believe that these inefficiencies are greater in the private model.

:bravo: I believe a bit of rep is in order for the quoted post. ANY program has to be administrated and that administration costs money. I personally believe the private model works better since those doing the administering are closer to those in need than some fatass bureaucrat on Capitol Hill.

It is immensely entertaining how lefties will try to substantiate the bending over and greasing up of the public in the name of helping the less fortunate but disparage people who would rather do it privately (and ultimately more generously). My church, for instance, is part of a 4 church group of different denominations who have banded together to provide a food locker for those in our area who have fallen on hardship for one reason or another. The red tape is kept to a minimum, the food is distributed by us and paid for by us during services in the form of an additional collection. My neighbors are getting help from this program having lost their jobs many months ago and having run out of unemployment. They can't even get food stamps. THANK YOU GUBMENT FOR HELPING MY NEIGHBORS WHO PAID TAXES FOR THIS EVENTUALITY. Remind me again why the gubment fleecing us every month is better???????

Ah, what the heck....the lefties all know that we on the right are insensitive greedy bastiges who only care about themselves, right? :shake:

jAZ

03-29-2008, 10:50 AM

:rolleyes:

As if people who advocate for government redistribution programs to benefit the poor aren't also advocating for a bloated bureaucracy complete with well paid administrators and expensive administration buildings. Whether we're talking about charitably giving your own money privately or "chartiably" giving yours and everyone else's through your big government voting record, you're going to encounter these cost of doing business inefficiencies. I can't recall a convincing argument as to why we should believe that these inefficiencies are greater in the private model.
Non Sequitur.

stevieray

03-29-2008, 10:55 AM

I'm not saying Churches don't do charity. But passing the plate, tithing, etc pays for the staff, the building, the landscaping, new pews, the bible camp, etc.

Anyone who doesn't go to church doesn't get credit toward "charity" for the 10% of their income they pay towards that $1,000,000 building and $100,000 pastor.

That they include those contributions in this discussion makes it DEEPLY flawed.

you are grossly misinformed.

patteeu

03-29-2008, 11:04 AM

Non Sequitur.

Not really.

BucEyedPea

03-29-2008, 11:04 AM

Sure tithing pays for staff and buildings. But churches also have additional outreach programs, that parishioners are asked to donate to specifically as well. Not to mention all the other charity groups set-up that many other people give to.

My ex used to work for a professional hospital fundraising company. It was immensely successful. Yeah, the staff were well paid, and the owner very successful too, but they still ran it lean and mean. The thing that matters is results. Their fundraisers were very successful whereby whole wings to hospitals could be built without the medical consumers having to foot the bill.

Too bad our fp ruined that for them, post 9/11.

Baby Lee

03-29-2008, 11:04 AM

Superfly Do or Die.
Preach!!

banyon

03-29-2008, 11:05 AM

:bravo: I believe a bit of rep is in order for the quoted post. ANY program has to be administrated and that administration costs money. I personally believe the private model works better since those doing the administering are closer to those in need than some fatass bureaucrat on Capitol Hill.

It is immensely entertaining how lefties will try to substantiate the bending over and greasing up of the public in the name of helping the less fortunate but disparage people who would rather do it privately (and ultimately more generously). My church, for instance, is part of a 4 church group of different denominations who have banded together to provide a food locker for those in our area who have fallen on hardship for one reason or another. The red tape is kept to a minimum, the food is distributed by us and paid for by us during services in the form of an additional collection. My neighbors are getting help from this program having lost their jobs many months ago and having run out of unemployment. They can't even get food stamps. THANK YOU GUBMENT FOR HELPING MY NEIGHBORS WHO PAID TAXES FOR THIS EVENTUALITY. Remind me again why the gubment fleecing us every month is better???????

Ah, what the heck....the lefties all know that we on the right are insensitive greedy bastiges who only care about themselves, right? :shake:

The anti-government circle-jerk is getting out of control. Administration costs for health care for example are far greater right now than in the public sphere. Here's one estimate (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php):

WASHINGTON, D.C. Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about a third of total U.S. health care spending a sum so great that if the United states were to have a national health insurance program, the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies.

That's the current, private system.

And as much as everyone loves to rail against "GUBMENT BUREAUCRATS", there aren't many scandals where the prinicpals involved are embezzeling or looting the funds, which unfortunately does happen with some churches.

what about? Anything in particular? The list appeared to correspond with many of the churches I attended in the South.

stevieray

03-29-2008, 11:18 AM

Sure tithing pays for staff and buildings. But churches also have additional outreach programs, that parishioners are asked to donate to specifically as well. Not to mention all the other charity groups set-up that many other people give to.

yup, I usually split it between the church or one of the our twelve missionary families around the world....

I have a very giving church, we've already met out budget in the first qtr, which means more dispensible income towards the missionary work.

We have a retired USMC couple who stood up the other day and said that they were called (indian reservation) to serve and said that they were blessed with retirements from the military, and were only asking for our prayers, not financial support..

FWIW, in the past, I never gave 10% in tithing...and even though people had told me about it, I didn't do it. About a year ago, I started doing it...first check I write everytime I get paid..and I haven't been unemployed since..and to a self employed man, that is one thing I don't worry about anymore, wheras it used to keep me up at night.

This week I will give 260 dollars..and my name won't be on the envelope..sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. it's not who is giving, it just that you do give..and i know in my heart that my Church will do the right thing, even though I've already done my part and it is out of my hands.

CHIEF4EVER

03-29-2008, 11:24 AM

The anti-government circle-jerk is getting out of control. Administration costs for health care for example are far greater right now than in the public sphere.And as much as everyone loves to rail against "GUBMENT BUREAUCRATS", there aren't many scandals where the prinicpals involved are embezzeling or looting the funds, which unfortunately does happen with some churches.

The leftist "gubment can solve all our problems by stealing from the citizens" circle jerk is getting out of control. I never mentioned effing health care yet you choose to bring it up as if it is relevant to my post somehow.

Furthermore, to make the statement that fraud, waste and abuse is greater in the private sector than in the gubment is ludicrous. If you truly believe that, I will send you a PM about a GREAT DEAL I know of but you have to buy today. ROFL

BTW...Nice of you to say 'some' when referring to 3 instances out of MILLIONS of churches of all denominations.....hyperbole anyone? That's like saying 'some' of penchiefs views are right wing and reasonable. LMAO

CHIEF4EVER

03-29-2008, 11:26 AM

This week I will give 260 dollars..and my name won't be on the envelope..sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. it's not who is giving, it just that you do give..and i know in my heart that my Church will do the right thing, even though I've already done my part and it is out of my hands.

Don't be silly bro. Write that check to the gubment. They will spend it more efficiently....just ask banyon. LMAO

The leftist "gubment can solve all our problems by stealing from the citizens" circle jerk is getting out of control. I never mentioned effing health care yet you choose to bring it up as if it is relevant to my post somehow.

It is relevant, it has to do with administrative costs. Plenty of people in this thread argued that private enterprise always does things more efficiently, but the problem with many charities is that the actual donations getwrapped up in administrative costs (not all, just some).

Furthermore, to make the statement that fraud, waste and abuse is greater in the private sector than in the gubment is ludicrous. If you truly believe that, I will send you a PM about a GREAT DEAL I know of but you have to buy today. ROFL

Waste? Probably not (i didn't make that claim). Fraud? Absolutely. It's always greater when there is less oversight, that's just common sense.

BTW...Nice of you to say 'some' when referring to 3 instances out of MILLIONS of churches of all denominations.....hyperbole anyone? That's like saying 'some' of penchiefs views are right wing and reasonable. LMAO

What's hyperbolic about it? "Some" isn't accurate? Hyperbole would've been "a great deal" or "very many". "some" is a word that logically means more than 1, in this context, several spread across the country. "Some" examples in the links provided earlier. I've been known to engage in hyperbole on occasion, but this was a poor time to try to use that word.

Not at all, the majority of the costs are to comply with private insurance carrier requirements (since they are the ones a doin' the payin').

How did I censor anything? What a bizarre, though not wholly unexpected, allegation.

patteeu

03-29-2008, 12:31 PM

The anti-government circle-jerk is getting out of control. Administration costs for health care for example are far greater right now than in the public sphere. Here's one estimate (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php):

That's the current, private system.

And as much as everyone loves to rail against "GUBMENT BUREAUCRATS", there aren't many scandals where the prinicpals involved are embezzeling or looting the funds, which unfortunately does happen with some churches.

You're moving away from the comparison of private charities versus government redistribution programs here, but I'd point out that all large bureaucracies tend to be fraught with inefficiency whether public or private.

CHIEF4EVER

03-29-2008, 07:19 PM

It is relevant, it has to do with administrative costs. Plenty of people in this thread argued that private enterprise always does things more efficiently, but the problem with many charities is that the actual donations getwrapped up in administrative costs (not all, just some).

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I had to leave before answering because I was refereeing football (soccer) matches. The argument you are making about some donations getting wrapped up in admin costs is no different than the admin costs of government and I daresay the admin costs are less in private programs. The real difference lies in distribution fairness and efficiency. The gubment makes a total mockery of social programs because of their inefficiency. Church administered charity is generally closer to those in need of help and more responsive. The Food Locker program (for instance) of our 4 church group is for people in our local community and is devoid of all the red tape of gubment administered programs of similar nature.

Waste? Probably not (i didn't make that claim). Fraud? Absolutely. It's always greater when there is less oversight, that's just common sense.

What leads you to believe that there is less oversight in a church program? In the aforementioned example, the program is overseen by the elders of all 4 churches, the treasurers and the pastors. Not a penny is unaccounted for.

What's hyperbolic about it? "Some" isn't accurate? Hyperbole would've been "a great deal" or "very many". "some" is a word that logically means more than 1, in this context, several spread across the country. "Some" examples in the links provided earlier. I've been known to engage in hyperbole on occasion, but this was a poor time to try to use that word.

Some may be 'technically' accurate but that is so much parsing of words counselor (which, I admit, you legal eagles are quite adept at). The inference is very clear. Instead of saying 'a few' which would more accurately describe your example but leave your argument lacking in punch, you chose the term 'some'.

banyon

03-29-2008, 09:20 PM

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I had to leave before answering because I was refereeing football (soccer) matches. The argument you are making about some donations getting wrapped up in admin costs is no different than the admin costs of government and I daresay the admin costs are less in private programs. The real difference lies in distribution fairness and efficiency. The gubment makes a total mockery of social programs because of their inefficiency. Church administered charity is generally closer to those in need of help and more responsive. The Food Locker program (for instance) of our 4 church group is for people in our local community and is devoid of all the red tape of gubment administered programs of similar nature.

I think there are things each entity does that are probably more efficient than the other.

What leads you to believe that there is less oversight in a church program? In the aforementioned example, the program is overseen by the elders of all 4 churches, the treasurers and the pastors. Not a penny is unaccounted for.

Not a penny goes unaccounted for in churches? Seriously? How many people do you have to see get busted before you figure out that isn't true? Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Swaggart, Richard Roberts
(Oral's son), and the list goes on... These are just the major scandals. When I was a private attorney, i was involved either defending or pursuing claims of embezzlement on several cases myself.

[quote=CHIEF4EVER]Some may be 'technically' accurate but that is so much parsing of words counselor (which, I admit, you legal eagles are quite adept at). The inference is very clear. Instead of saying 'a few' which would more accurately describe your example but leave your argument lacking in punch, you chose the term 'some'.

This semantic issue is really beside the point. Your other points are well taken, but I think you Went for the 40 yard bomb here on 3rd down and should've just gotten the first down.

BucEyedPea

03-30-2008, 06:45 AM

Well, let me see...our govt also pledged money to the tsunami victims but then put it in the hands of the UN to manage it as it will all the govt funded relief. Another typical dumb centralizing govt decision since the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates that UN officials are the worst possible stewards of the tsunami relief funds even if Bush admin officials promise to keep a tight watch over such funsd. We cannot control this money once it’s sent overseas for UN administration. Yeah right! Govt oversight. That's like having the foxes watch the chickens.

Now look at the mess under the central govt under Brown and state govt with Katrina. The local non-govt folks probably did a better job. In fact I heard there were certain charities that did.

Money is vital but it's not the only thing needed either because it is necessary to circumvent he government bureaucracies that tend to boss people around ( control freaks) after natural disasters.

"Doctors Without Borders, a private group known for providing medical care in poor nations, actually requested that people stop sending them money last week. Their operating model relies on very low overhead and complete independence from governments, and they understand that throwing more and more money at a disaster is not necessarily the best approach."— RON PAUL

Might as well make a case for govt sport's leagues, boy scouts, girl scouts, clubs and associations too.

BucEyedPea

03-30-2008, 06:58 AM

Church administered charity is generally closer to those in need of help and more responsive. The Food Locker program (for instance) of our 4 church group is for people in our local community and is devoid of all the red tape of gubment administered programs of similar nature.

Yup! Red Tape under govt relief is much worse. Bureaucracy conjures up the idea of inflexible officials dealing with inflexible legal rules which cannot be changed on the spot to really handle something the way it may require. How can a bureaucrat or govt rule always know in advance what is best?

The whole enterprise of disaster aid has become one of the great rackets of modern government. Today we have the disgusting spectacle of senators and presidents coming to visit weather-injured places, as if they have within their capacity the ability to size up damage and make provisions for making it all correct. We are supposed to believe that they know more about the proper course of action than insurance adjusters and property owners." RON PAUL

You shoulda seen Charlie Crist and some of the reporting during our hurricanes. The gubment guys couldn't get everywhere fast enough to move trees. Gasp! A women overpaid a private contractor to remove three trees from her own yard during peak demand. But that was GOUGING! Even though she was satisfied with the exchange. I tell ya' it was major local news. Dirty greedy capitalists pigs! People should wait weeks instead.

banyon

03-30-2008, 10:33 AM

Well, let me see...our govt also pledged money to the tsunami victims but then put it in the hands of the UN to manage it as it will all the govt funded relief. Another typical dumb centralizing govt decision since the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates that UN officials are the worst possible stewards of the tsunami relief funds even if Bush admin officials promise to keep a tight watch over such funsd. We cannot control this money once its sent overseas for UN administration. Yeah right! Govt oversight. That's like having the foxes watch the chickens.

Now look at the mess under the central govt under Brown and state govt with Katrina. The local non-govt folks probably did a better job. In fact I heard there were certain charities that did.

Money is vital but it's not the only thing needed either because it is necessary to circumvent he government bureaucracies that tend to boss people around ( control freaks) after natural disasters.

"Doctors Without Borders, a private group known for providing medical care in poor nations, actually requested that people stop sending them money last week. Their operating model relies on very low overhead and complete independence from governments, and they understand that throwing more and more money at a disaster is not necessarily the best approach." RON PAUL

Might as well make a case for govt sport's leagues, boy scouts, girl scouts, clubs and associations too.

Yeah, someone is arguing we ought to do away with charities. You really are in your own little world aren't you? :spock:

banyon

03-30-2008, 10:34 AM

Yup! Red Tape under govt relief is much worse. Bureaucracy conjures up the idea of inflexible officials dealing with inflexible legal rules which cannot be changed on the spot to really handle something the way it may require. How can a bureaucrat or govt rule always know in advance what is best?

You shoulda seen Charlie Crist and some of the reporting during our hurricanes. The gubment guys couldn't get everywhere fast enough to move trees. Gasp! A women overpaid a private contractor to remove three trees from her own yard during peak demand. But that was GOUGING! Even though she was satisfied with the exchange. I tell ya' it was major local news. Dirty greedy capitalists pigs! People should wait weeks instead.

I don't think the private contractors we hired for Katrina have done an especially bang-up job now, have they?

Baby Lee

03-30-2008, 10:52 AM

I don't think the private contractors we hired for Katrina have done an especially bang-up job now, have they?

Interestingly, This Old House has been rehabbing in NO this season, and they've delineated a number of positive programs that have sprung up in the aftermath. Habitat for Humanity, natch. The Marsalis musician's village.

And in the most recent episode detailed a guy who started pre-Katrina with a Diner he installed in a high-crime area with the intention of hiring those committing the crimes but looking for a way out so they could learn a trade. And he's expanded it to a HfH style program where those 'at risk' are trained in the construction trades, with their sweat equity resulting in a house of their own.

banyon

03-30-2008, 11:08 AM

Interestingly, This Old House has been rehabbing in NO this season, and they've delineated a number of positive programs that have sprung up in the aftermath. Habitat for Humanity, natch. The Marsalis musician's village.

And in the most recent episode detailed a guy who started pre-Katrina with a Diner he installed in a high-crime area with the intention of hiring those committing the crimes but looking for a way out so they could learn a trade. And he's expanded it to a HfH style program where those 'at risk' are trained in the construction trades, with their sweat equity resulting in a house of their own.

That's good. I particularly like the 2nd program, gives them a real stake in their work.

I guess it's more the private (govt-hired) contractors who are just there to bid a number and the less they spend the more $ they make-types that I probably have my beef with.

Baby Lee

03-30-2008, 11:14 AM

That's good. I particularly like the 2nd program, gives them a real stake in their work.
They didn't bring it up, but he's apparently driven by his Catholic faith in his endeavors.

Didn't you get the memo about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports, BL?

Catholics are the devil....and just because Catholic Charities is the largest charitable organization in the world doesn't mean anything, I mean, someone gave the Pope a gold plated bicycle a few years ago!